Our culture has had two paradigms for success ... for over one hundred years.
1. The first paradigm defines individual success and began before the Civil War.
“Go to school, get a good education, get a good job, work real hard, and retire to a rocking chair on your front porch or go fishing six days a week.”
2. The second paradigm relates to business success and has two parts.
- a. The oldest part of this paradigm began before the Civil War when the steam engine, the cotton gin, and telegraph began to change how people lived. Since farming was becoming mechanized, fewer people could work on farms. Consequently, parents had to teach their children a new paradigm for successful self-employment (farmers were self-employed) in the industrial age. The new paradigm became, “build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.” Understanding soil and seasons was replaced with creativity and invention.
- b. In the last few decades, due to reduced profits from inflation and offshore competition, a new paradigm gained popularity, “profit, profit, profit.” The paradigm of profit justifies any action, whether legal but not ethical, or ethical but not moral, or moral but not sustainable.
The first paradigm, “go to school,” is not a pleasant subject among those who have paid dearly for their own college education (as I have) . My personal library indicates that education is, and always will be important.
However when 50% of college graduates cannot find work in their chosen field, perhaps we need to consider a new paradigm. In the next decade, the “go to school” paradigm is going to be severely challenged because China currently has more students that graduate with honors … than we have students that graduate. Still not convinced? Consider a real life application of this antiquated paradigm.
According to current labor department statistics, if an unemployed person only has a high school diploma, standing in the unemployment line will average three months. If a suddenly unemployed person has a Bachelors degree, then re-employment will be delayed about six months. If an unemployed person has a Masters, then the wait would be about one year. When a person with a PhD gets laid off, it takes an average of two years for re-employment.
Now, I know all the reasons for getting a higher degree: more pay, more respect, more benefits, etc. I won’t argue with any of those honorable and well earned rewards. The flaw is this: the “go to school” paradigm does not include the potential for a two year stint of unemployment. Here’s reality.
When a PhD has been unemployed for two years (which is the average) - credit cards are maxed out in order to maintain the lifestyle of a PhD
- the PhD’s home has become REO (Real Estate Owned by the bank)
- any cars that were not fully paid for are being driven by someone else
- student loans continue accruing interest
- and the probability of divorce increases exponentially.
How does the “go to school” paradigm teach the proud possessor of a PhD how to survive such devastation?
Now, I am not saying to throw away your PhD, or withdraw your candidacy for a PhD. What I am saying is the “go to school” paradigm for success, which has a PhD as the apex, is outdated and does not work well in our current (and future) economy.
Allow me to offer my guesstimate (educated guess) regarding the new paradigm for success (particularly for the Y generation and the millennials). Here it is:
Find what you are passionate about, then create multiple streams of income by expertly doing what you really enjoy doing.
Using this paradigm, a person who loved folk dancing could study for a PhD in ancient therapeutic dance (for example). With the knowledge acquired, the person would then create two or more streams of income in the field for which he is passionate … and has a PhD.
Should one income stream evaporate (perhaps the loss of a professorship due to college budget cuts), the PhD could shift to the second stream (consulting, writing a book, guest lecturer, or part time business). Long term unemployment would be improbable because he/she would always have a back up income to cover contingencies … of course a little rainy day money would also be nice.
Doing what you love (passion) is gaining popularity, however it is conflict with the second paradigm of business, but not the first paradigm. If business is focused on “building a better mouse trap,” then inventor-ship would be encouraged. After all, there will always a bigger, better, faster, and more effective gizmo for which the world is waiting with bated breath.
In contrast, a business primarily focused on “profit, profit, profit,” would not allow employees (not even a PhD) to create a secondary income stream because the business “buys” (W2 income) the prescribed work plus the creative effort of employees (usually part of the employment contract).
Suppose the PhD invents something, while not at work, which blossoms into a secondary income. The PhD’s employer will typically claim the invention as theirs, particularly if the invention is in the field of knowledge for which the PhD is employed. The “profit, profit, profit” paradigm is in conflict with “do what you love.”
Fortunately, the “profit, profit, profit” paradigm is also changing. The new paradigm appears to be “people, planet, profit.” If “profit, profit, profit” resulted in the abuse of people (80% of employees are dissatisfied with their job), the planet (our garbage overfloweth), then a balancing paradigm would put profit at the bottom of the totem pole of values. Instead of profit justifying the mal-treatment of employees, vendors, customers, local habitat, and the planet, the new paradigm of “people, planet, profit is gaining momentum. Even the EPA is getting in on this transition of paradigms.
Recently the EPA created the “Seal of Environmental Design” which clearly reflects the new “People, Planet, Profit” paradigm. To earn the Seal of Environmental Design a company has to show that they treat their employees fairly, with manufacturing procedures that are people and planet friendly (even suppliers are included). Additionally, the company must show that they do not injure the habitat surrounding their facilities (perhaps even reclaiming damaged habitat resulting from someone else’s mistreatment of Mother Earth).
To my knowledge, only one company has earned the Environmental Design award. The same company is the only American company to receive the United Nations Environmental Award (in the 1980’s). The same company introduced biodegradable cleaners (in the 1960’s) when people did not know what the word biodegradable meant. If you want people and planet safe cleaning products for your business or home, may I suggest you check out the Legacy of Clean product line from the fifty year old company that set impeccable standards before there were any standards … Amway-Global.
Be happy, healthy, wealthy, and wise,
Tom Van Drielen
Home Office 408-723-4777
Linkedin www.linkedin.com/in/tvandrielen
Symbiosis Enterprises
Box 18907
San Jose, Ca. 95118
http://www.symbiosis4u.us 
Try a RedOx machine for a full month and experience the benefits of drinking triple conditioned water … before you pay any money. RedOx (say Red Ox) machines triple condition water which flushes environmental toxins out of the body, gently diminishes acid reflux, while supporting the immune system with massive amounts of free radical zapping hydroxyl ions.
